Aviation Medical "Fraud"

[Larry Dighera]

How is it that airmen are able to hide their medical conditions from
the licensed medical doctor examining them, but not from Congress?



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebALERT News Alert -- March 27, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/11/840-full.htm

House Committee Probes Aviation Medical "Fraud" (http://www.avweb.com)
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James L.
Oberstar, D-Minn., today released a committee oversight report that
identifies widespread fraud among pilots who hide serious medical
conditions from examining physicians to retain medical certification
for their FAA pilot licenses.

[Jim Stewart]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> How is it that airmen are able to hide their medical conditions from
> the licensed medical doctor examining them, but not from Congress?

The article says, but I guess you'd like
someone to write you an executive summary (:

They compared SSN disability recipents with
pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
had disabilities that would prevent them from
truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
had one.

>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVwebALERT News Alert -- March 27, 2007
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/11/840-full.htm
>
> House Committee Probes Aviation Medical "Fraud" (http://www.avweb.com)
> House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James L.
> Oberstar, D-Minn., today released a committee oversight report that
> identifies widespread fraud among pilots who hide serious medical
> conditions from examining physicians to retain medical certification
> for their FAA pilot licenses.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:44:39 -0800, Jim Stewart >
wrote in >:

>
>They compared SSN disability recipents with
>pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
>had disabilities that would prevent them from
>truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
>had one.

Does it say how many instances of this they found as a percentage of
total current airman certificate holders?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:44:39 -0800, Jim Stewart >
wrote in >:

>
>They compared SSN disability recipents with
>pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
>had disabilities that would prevent them from
>truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
>had one.


Does the article happen to mention how many airmen filed disability
insurance claims before seeking FAA medical certificates? Of does it
fail to differentiate between those and those airmen who became
disabled subsequent to their medical examinations?

I wasn't aware that medical disability information was a matter of
public record; interesting.

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> How is it that airmen are able to hide their medical conditions from
> the licensed medical doctor examining them, but not from Congress?

Obviously they can't. The airmen were either:

1) Committing fraud against the Social Security Administration,
2) Committing fraud against the Federal Aviation Administration,
3) Neither of the above.

There are too many problems with the committee's report[1] that it is
difficult to know where to start. Here's an attempt:

A) Claiming that after examining the records of 40,000 airmen (over 6%
of all airmen), the 45 that they _charged_ with fraud (about 0.1%)
constitutes a "widespread" problem. Looks like 99.9% compliance to me.

B) Confusing "charged" with "convicted".

C) Assumes case (2) above rather than (1) but fails to give the reasons
to prefer one over the other.

D) Assumes incorrectly that post-mortem results are reliable indicators
of fraud rather than, say, simple oversights or honest mistakes.

E) Assumes incorrectly that the post-mortem drug results numbers can be
extrapolated. Such an extrapolation is valid only if those who are
medically unfit are just as likely to crash as healthy pilots. But of
course if that were the case then there would be no safety value in
denying unhealthy pilots from flying! So if the rate of accidents of
unfit pilots is presumed to be an unknown amount greater than that of
fit pilots (e.g. 1000 times higher) then, for example, if 10% of fatal
accidents appear to involve unfit pilots then only 0.01% of all pilots
are unfit - not 10% of all pilots!

F) After introducing the ~0.1% number that were charged with fraud, then
discards it and uses the incorrectly extrapolated ~10% number to claim
"wide spread" fraud. Under what definition, outside of the rhetorical
and political realm, is 99.9% or even 90% compliance considered evidence
of widespread non-compliance?

G) One of the "unclear on the concept" recommendations is to require
pilots to state whether or not they are receiving medical disability
benefits. If the applicant was willing to lie about other aspects then
why does anyone think the applicant would suddenly find honesty with
that requirement?

[1] http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/Safe%20Pilot%20Committee%20Report.pdf

[Jim Stewart]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:44:39 -0800, Jim Stewart >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>>They compared SSN disability recipents with
>>pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
>>had disabilities that would prevent them from
>>truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
>>had one.
>
>
>
> Does the article happen to mention how many airmen filed disability
> insurance claims before seeking FAA medical certificates? Of does it
> fail to differentiate between those and those airmen who became
> disabled subsequent to their medical examinations?
>
> I wasn't aware that medical disability information was a matter of
> public record; interesting.

Who said it was? There's nothing to stop two
federal agencies from comparing databases, as
long as they don't disclose the information in
the databases to the public.

I'm *not* in favor of such fishing expeditions,
but just the same, the government has a long
history of doing them.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> They compared SSN disability recipents with
> pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
> had disabilities that would prevent them from
> truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
> had one.

How many of the pilots committing fraud had been incapacitated in flight by
the conditions they hid from the FAA?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> They compared SSN disability recipents with
>> pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
>> had disabilities that would prevent them from
>> truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
>> had one.
>
> How many of the pilots committing fraud had been incapacitated in
> flight by the conditions they hid from the FAA?

Why, you hoping to be called up front to push buttons and turn knobs?


bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Why, you hoping to be called up front to push buttons and turn knobs?

Because if they aren't being incapacitated by these conditions, perhaps the
conditions should not be disqualifying in the first place.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Why, you hoping to be called up front to push buttons and turn knobs?
>
> Because if they aren't being incapacitated by these conditions,
> perhaps the conditions should not be disqualifying in the first place.

What maybe like the way your's incapacitates you?

bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 27, 4:12 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:44:39 -0800, Jim Stewart >
> > wrote in >:
>
> >>They compared SSN disability recipents with
> >>pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
> >>had disabilities that would prevent them from
> >>truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
> >>had one.
>
> > Does the article happen to mention how many airmen filed disability
> > insurance claims before seeking FAA medical certificates? Of does it
> > fail to differentiate between those and those airmen who became
> > disabled subsequent to their medical examinations?
>
> > I wasn't aware that medical disability information was a matter of
> > public record; interesting.
>
> Who said it was? There's nothing to stop two
> federal agencies from comparing databases, as
> long as they don't disclose the information in
> the databases to the public.

Well Clinton ordered agencies from sharing information.

-Robert

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:44:39 -0800, Jim Stewart >
> wrote in >:
>
>>
>> They compared SSN disability recipents with
>> pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
>> had disabilities that would prevent them from
>> truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
>> had one.
>
> Does it say how many instances of this they found as a percentage of
> total current airman certificate holders?

Longer version same story...
_____________________
On Tuesday, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James
L. Oberstar, D-Minn., on Tuesday released a committee oversight report that
identifies "widespread fraud" among pilots who hide serious medical
conditions from examining physicians to retain medical certification for
their FAA pilot certificates. The report notes that "in July 2005, the DOT
Inspector General found 'egregious cases' of airmen lying about debilitating
medical conditions on their applications" for FAA medicals. The DOT watchdog
sampled 40,000 airman's records and found more than 3,200 held current
medical certificates while simultaneously receiving Social Security
benefits, some for medically disabling conditions. Forty people were
prosecuted, but the committee's oversight and investigations staff believe
hundreds more could have been pursued if not for limited resources. Further,
the research team found "toxicology evidence" of serious medical conditions
in nearly 10 percent of all pilots involved in fatal accidents during a
10-year period, though less than 10 percent of these medical conditions were
disclosed to the FAA. "Despite these findings, FAA managers argue that the
problem of airmen falsifying medical applications is negligible," the report
notes. Committee staff concludes that the FAA's response is unacceptable and
reiterates the DOT IG's previous recommendation that the agency "coordinate
with Social Security and other providers of medical disability to identify
individuals whose documented medical conditions are inconsistent with sworn
statements made to the FAA." The committee researchers opine that this
action would create "incentive for airmen to be more forthcoming about their
existing medical conditions." Per FAR 67.403, "Falsification of the airman
medical application form 8500-8 may result in adverse action including fines
up to $250,000, imprisonment up to 5 years and revocation of medical and all
pilot certificates."
________________________________________


3200 out of a random 40,000 sample is about 8%. The story says that "some
for medically disabling conditions" so the actual percentage that had
medical problems that would not allow them to fly would be somewhere from 8%
down to 0.000001%. I think the much more interesting number is the 10% of
fatals included "toxicology evidence." What isn't said is if the "evidence"
in this 10% was all non-reported medical conditions. What they are talking
about I would assume is things like heart drugs that indicate a pilot with a
heart condition. But how many of that 10% had reported the condition and had
a waiver.

Like so many times it isn't what the news story says but what it doesn't
say.

[Andrew Sarangan]

What would be more relevant is any correlation between these
individuals and accidents.


On Mar 27, 6:44 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > How is it that airmen are able to hide their medical conditions from
> > the licensed medical doctor examining them, but not from Congress?
>
> The article says, but I guess you'd like
> someone to write you an executive summary (:
>
> They compared SSN disability recipents with
> pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
> had disabilities that would prevent them from
> truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
> had one.
>
>
>
>
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > AVwebALERT News Alert -- March 27, 2007
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/11/840-full.htm
>
> > House Committee Probes Aviation Medical "Fraud" (http://www.avweb.com)
> > House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James L.
> > Oberstar, D-Minn., today released a committee oversight report that
> > identifies widespread fraud among pilots who hide serious medical
> > conditions from examining physicians to retain medical certification
> > for their FAA pilot licenses.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Gig 601XL Builder]

And if you read the longer version I posted in response to Larry's post you
will see that there is.


Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> What would be more relevant is any correlation between these
> individuals and accidents.
>
>
> On Mar 27, 6:44 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> How is it that airmen are able to hide their medical conditions from
>>> the licensed medical doctor examining them, but not from Congress?
>>
>> The article says, but I guess you'd like
>> someone to write you an executive summary (:
>>
>> They compared SSN disability recipents with
>> pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
>> had disabilities that would prevent them from
>> truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
>> had one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> AVwebALERT News Alert -- March 27, 2007
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/11/840-full.htm
>>
>>> House Committee Probes Aviation Medical "Fraud"
>>> (http://www.avweb.com) House Transportation and Infrastructure
>>> Committee Chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., today released a
>>> committee oversight report that identifies widespread fraud among
>>> pilots who hide serious medical conditions from examining
>>> physicians to retain medical certification for their FAA pilot
>>> licenses.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

[Peter Dohm]

> > What would be more relevant is any correlation between these
> > individuals and accidents.
> >
> >
> And if you read the longer version I posted in response to Larry's post
you
> will see that there is.
>
>
I read it and saw that no real correlation was documented.

[Howard Nelson]

Another way of analyzing it is perhaps these pilots were fit to fly but were
not disabled. Is it possible that the error was not on their flight
physical but on their disablility evaluations.


"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:44:39 -0800, Jim Stewart >
> > wrote in >:
> >
> >>
> >> They compared SSN disability recipents with
> >> pilot's licenses. A few naughty individuals
> >> had disabilities that would prevent them from
> >> truthfully obtaining a valid medical, yet they
> >> had one.
> >
> > Does it say how many instances of this they found as a percentage of
> > total current airman certificate holders?
>
> Longer version same story...
> _____________________
> On Tuesday, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman
James
> L. Oberstar, D-Minn., on Tuesday released a committee oversight report
that
> identifies "widespread fraud" among pilots who hide serious medical
> conditions from examining physicians to retain medical certification for
> their FAA pilot certificates. The report notes that "in July 2005, the DOT
> Inspector General found 'egregious cases' of airmen lying about
debilitating
> medical conditions on their applications" for FAA medicals. The DOT
watchdog
> sampled 40,000 airman's records and found more than 3,200 held current
> medical certificates while simultaneously receiving Social Security
> benefits, some for medically disabling conditions. Forty people were
> prosecuted, but the committee's oversight and investigations staff believe
> hundreds more could have been pursued if not for limited resources.
Further,
> the research team found "toxicology evidence" of serious medical
conditions
> in nearly 10 percent of all pilots involved in fatal accidents during a
> 10-year period, though less than 10 percent of these medical conditions
were
> disclosed to the FAA. "Despite these findings, FAA managers argue that the
> problem of airmen falsifying medical applications is negligible," the
report
> notes. Committee staff concludes that the FAA's response is unacceptable
and
> reiterates the DOT IG's previous recommendation that the agency
"coordinate
> with Social Security and other providers of medical disability to identify
> individuals whose documented medical conditions are inconsistent with
sworn
> statements made to the FAA." The committee researchers opine that this
> action would create "incentive for airmen to be more forthcoming about
their
> existing medical conditions." Per FAR 67.403, "Falsification of the airman
> medical application form 8500-8 may result in adverse action including
fines
> up to $250,000, imprisonment up to 5 years and revocation of medical and
all
> pilot certificates."
> ________________________________________
>
>
> 3200 out of a random 40,000 sample is about 8%. The story says that "some
> for medically disabling conditions" so the actual percentage that had
> medical problems that would not allow them to fly would be somewhere from
8%
> down to 0.000001%. I think the much more interesting number is the 10% of
> fatals included "toxicology evidence." What isn't said is if the
"evidence"
> in this 10% was all non-reported medical conditions. What they are talking
> about I would assume is things like heart drugs that indicate a pilot with
a
> heart condition. But how many of that 10% had reported the condition and
had
> a waiver.
>
> Like so many times it isn't what the news story says but what it doesn't
> say.
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Howard Nelson writes:

> Another way of analyzing it is perhaps these pilots were fit to fly but were
> not disabled. Is it possible that the error was not on their flight
> physical but on their disablility evaluations.

Or they may have been fit to fly and knew it, but had some condition that they
also knew would disqualify them.

I think relatively few pilots would take real risks, risks that might
incapacitate them in flight and cause them to die. But if they have
conditions that aren't really likely to incapacitate them, and they have a
great love of flying, I can see why some of them might yield to the temptation
to lie about it.

It's also interesting to note that some pilots with perfect first-class
medicals turn out to be in bad shape at autopsy. I recall one report about an
accident in which both pilots were killed, and at autopsy it turned out that
they had severe narrowing of coronary arteries (90% for one of the pilots).
But they had their medicals, and it wasn't the cardiovascular problems that
killed them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Frank....H[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> How is it that airmen are able to hide their medical conditions from
> the licensed medical doctor examining them, but not from Congress?
>
>


"I don't recall".....

--
Frank....H

[Danny Deger]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> How is it that airmen are able to hide their medical conditions from
> the licensed medical doctor examining them, but not from Congress?

I read in my AOPA newsletter about this. It says about 40 people in
California are being procecuted for this. Anybody know what penalties these
guys are facing? I would think if you own your own plane, flying without a
medical might be lower risk than lying on the medical form. Can you go to
jail for flying without a medical? I think jail time for lying on the
medical is very possible.

Danny Deger

>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVwebALERT News Alert -- March 27, 2007
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/11/840-full.htm
>
> House Committee Probes Aviation Medical "Fraud" (http://www.avweb.com)
> House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James L.
> Oberstar, D-Minn., today released a committee oversight report that
> identifies widespread fraud among pilots who hide serious medical
> conditions from examining physicians to retain medical certification
> for their FAA pilot licenses.

[Steve Foley]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...

> Anybody know what penalties these guys are facing? I would think if you
> own your own plane, flying without a medical might be lower risk than
> lying on the medical form. Can you go to jail for flying without a
> medical? I think jail time for lying on the medical is very possible.
>

I have no idea what they can/will do for lying on the medical.

As far as I know, the worst they can do for flying without a medical is yank
your ticket.

I've heard flying without a ticket can earn you a trip to the big house too.

[Sylvain]

Steve Foley wrote:

> I have no idea what they can/will do for lying on the medical.

If I remember correctly, it is spelled out on the form itself; always
read the fine prints! (including the ones that say that you are under
no obligation to provide the FAA with a SSN but I digress)

--Sylvain

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:33:05 -0700, "Danny Deger"
> wrote in
>:

> Anybody know what penalties these guys are facing?



On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:48:00 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

Per FAR 67.403, "Falsification of the airman medical application
form 8500-8 may result in adverse action including fines up to
$250,000, imprisonment up to 5 years and revocation of medical and
all pilot certificates."

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:

> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>> What would be more relevant is any correlation between these
>> individuals and accidents.
>>
> And if you read the longer version I posted in response to Larry's
> post you will see that there is.
>
I read it and saw only inuendo and implications unsupported by correlated
data.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jim Logajan > posted:

> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> How is it that airmen are able to hide their medical conditions from
>> the licensed medical doctor examining them, but not from Congress?
>
> Obviously they can't. The airmen were either:
>
> 1) Committing fraud against the Social Security Administration,
> 2) Committing fraud against the Federal Aviation Administration,
> 3) Neither of the above.
>
> There are too many problems with the committee's report[1] that it is
> difficult to know where to start. Here's an attempt:
>
(rest of this excellent analysis snipped for brevity)

It constantly amazes me how a committee charged with oversight can deliver
published reports with such elementary errors, numerous misstatements and
erroneous conclusions. And then I recall the notion that "people usually
get the government they deserve" and find it a really depressing
situation.

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> > I wasn't aware that medical disability information was a matter of
> > public record; interesting.
>
> Who said it was? There's nothing to stop two
> federal agencies from comparing databases, as
> long as they don't disclose the information in
> the databases to the public.
>
> I'm *not* in favor of such fishing expeditions,
> but just the same, the government has a long
> history of doing them.

Just curious: Why would you be *against* the gummint comparing notes?

I, for one, am amazed and thrilled that the bureacrats actually
bothered to check something, for a change. The fact that We the
People are paying monthly "diability" stipends to physically-fit
pilots is a scandal that should rock the Social Security
administration -- not the FAA.

Unfortunately we pilots are the easier target to hit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Howard Nelson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> I, for one, am amazed and thrilled that the bureacrats actually
> bothered to check something, for a change. The fact that We the
> People are paying monthly "diability" stipends to physically-fit
> pilots is a scandal that should rock the Social Security
> administration -- not the FAA.
>
> Unfortunately we pilots are the easier target to hit.

Correct Jay. And that should be the point hammered home by AOPA and every
aviation supporter addressing this issue. The majority of these cases are
probably completely physically fit individuals who are scamming SSA not the
FAA.

Howard

[Mike Young]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > I wasn't aware that medical disability information was a matter of
>> > public record; interesting.
>>
>> Who said it was? There's nothing to stop two
>> federal agencies from comparing databases, as
>> long as they don't disclose the information in
>> the databases to the public.
>>
>> I'm *not* in favor of such fishing expeditions,
>> but just the same, the government has a long
>> history of doing them.
>
> Just curious: Why would you be *against* the gummint comparing notes?

The present example comes to mind as plenty of reason to be very wary. The
usual dictum is "garbage in, garbage out." We seldom mention the
transformation process in between. It's true that you can't make good
information out of bad (GIGO). It's equally true that you can take perfectly
good information and produce pure garbage, as they did in this case. 40 in
40000 hardly qualifies as "widespread abuse."

> I, for one, am amazed and thrilled that the bureacrats actually
> bothered to check something, for a change.

Oversight is good. Weeding out abuse is good. Promulgating it into law and
yet more layers of bureaucracy is not good. We don't need more laws. We
don't need more bureaucrats. In fact, bureacrats == abuse from my point of
view.